• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The last post is the WINNER!

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
buck.jpg
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This guy I was friends with in Indiana, sometimes we'd hang out and not even say much. It was actually rather nice having a quiet friend who ok with silence.
His wife though, you can trust her less than I can pick up and throw Mr. Van. And she's a drama queen who loves to stir the **** pot. It's unfortunate because she has a history of driving his friends away. And that they broke up after I moved.
I've never heard "stir the **** pot" before.
It's always been "stir the pot".
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Wanker.
It's nice disagreeing with the Pope. I don't often get to do it with this one. I'm supposed to be an anti-Christ and this guy is a bit of a hippy.
At least there's those hardline Protestants. But you and @Wu Wei and I all at least still have our first class tickets straight to Hell according to them. Everybody else has to ride coach. @sun rise doesn't have a soul according to them. @Brickjectivity keeps us bad influences of sin and vice as company.
Our being doomed to Hell appears to
vary with whichever Pope is in power.
Fickle God, eh.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Winning with updated information

Newsom’s riff on the Texas abortion law is less radical than it sounds


Though Newsom’s proposal invoked Texas law, which bans abortion after six weeks, the bill he seeks would look almost nothing like it. The two provisions that made SB 8 so harmful — direct contradiction of a constitutional right and a scheme in which private citizens, in the place of state officials, enforce an unconstitutional ban — are missing from the Newsom plan.

First, Newsom’s proposal does not directly contradict what the Supreme Court or the majority of federal courts have said about the 2nd Amendment....
...
Second, a potential bill, as suggested in Newsom’s statement, would not seek to prevent government officials from enforcing the gun laws, even if it gave private citizens the right to sue too. This is a crucial distinction from the Texas law, which was written to make private citizens the only enforcers. Moreover, California law already regulates assault weapons and ghost guns, and compliance is monitored by the government, not neighbors.

The Newsom proposal says nothing about eliminating government supervision of gun sales or manufacturing under those existing laws — which means people who oppose those gun restrictions can and will sue public officials. In fact, gun advocates have already sued officials in California, and those lawsuits will continue unimpeded. Unlike the Texas law, Newsom’s proposal would not offer an end run around government actors.
 
Top